Against Dog Ownership (2020)
mattlakeman.org
mattlakeman.org
We are creating dog breeds which physically match our apartment dwelling lifestyles (I'm thinking of those you can put in a handbag) but that still doesn't solve the problem that dogs are pack animals and leaving them alone in an apartment all day is not nice for them. But if we breed that pack instinct out of dogs then they would lose their fundamental appeal to people.
Is there a recommended site or book where one can learn about the general traits of various breeds to figure out which one would be the best fit for one's lifestyle?
[0] https://www.amazon.ca/Dogs-Over-000-Pedigree-Portraits/dp/15...
If you adopt, then make sure you know what you are getting (though this is a bit of a surprise bag usually). Especically when adopting at young age, the dog might change over time and calm down.
There are certainly certain breeds that are generally not recommended to beginners.
Our 2 dogs (one left now) both definitely benefited from having humans around all the time. However, with good crate training and a calm crate environment, you can leave dogs alone every now and then for a few hours.
Although I'd much prefer, in my perfect little daydream utopia, that more people recognized the symbiotic relationship between humans and dogs, and allowed dogs to remain with their humans more often. Especially at work, as long as those with issues with dogs can work safely.
Not to search very far, but you average GSD is very much a pack animal.
Early into the pandemic, despite my hesitation, my wife talked me into getting a Shiba Inu and my life completely changed. I love that dog more than I have ever loved anything other than my wife. I’m not sure how it happened, I really feel like some paternal instinct kicked in that just doesn’t for cats.
I used to think dogs were horrible and I hated how bars and restaurants were beginning to allow them, but my brain completely rewired in less than a year in a way I have never experienced and I have no logical explanation. I take my dog literally everywhere I can, I’m even in a Shiba meetup group. I’m a different happier person.
I still agree with the majority of this article. The idea of dog ownership is inherently problematic. It’s so ingrained in our culture and evolution, however, that I feel like the only thing I can really do is help by preventing at least one dog’s soul from suffering in a shelter.
I think realistically what one could easily do if they cared about the future of dogs in this respect is to never purchase dogs from a breeder unless they were needed for a specific purpose that is mutually beneficial for the human and dog (some “dogs with jobs” are given as examples in the article). Instead, adopt your dog from a rescue. At least then you aren’t actively making the problem worse.
I would make the following point - as the "owner" of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (closely related to the Pit Bulls that he speaks of), it is true that bull dogs and bull terriers were originally bred for bull baiting and dog fighting.
But, in the late 1800s, in the UK at least, there was a mass cull of bull dogs.
This is because these fighting dogs used to live with working class humans - in those days most families lived in a single room, so kids and dogs would share a space. And any bull dog that showed the slightest sign of aggression towards a human was killed.
This resulted in dogs that still had their ferocity and desire to fight - but absolutely adored being around humans - traits that are very apparent in Staffies today. This is what earned them their nickname of "Nanny Dogs" in Victorian times as they turned that aggression onto anything that tried to harm their family.
My staffie is a rescue - he was around three years old when we got him and has many many issues (severe anxiety, fear of strangers, no knowledge how to interact with other dogs, an inability to stop barking, grunting or snoring).
But he's the most loving and affectionate creature with the people that he knows. And he has never shown any aggression towards the animals he has shared his home with (two cats and two guinea pigs).
His life is greatly enhanced by living with us - and ours greatly enhanced (although much much more work) by us living with him. Plus he was with the RSPCA, who put their rescues to sleep, so we literally saved his life.
Sure maybe your pitbull likes you but as someone who used to work in a family run dog watching business when I was younger, I can assure you that we got more than a few dogs that got very aggressive the second their owners walked out the door. These dogs had to be isolated from the others and they were always fighting dog breeds.
> In those days most families lived in a single room, so kids and dogs would share a space
Dogs used to be kept outside.
> any bull dog that showed the slightest sign of aggression towards a human was killed.
This applies to all dog breeds. Dogs that attack humans are culled even to this day, I'm not sure why a "bull dog" would be special in this regard. The only thing unique to fighting breeds is they were bred to be good at killing without reason.
I don't know if you've ever seen any Victorian back-to-back terraced housing - but there is no outside. There is the house and then the street.
> This applies to all dog breeds. Dogs that attack humans are culled even to this day, I'm not sure why a "bull dog" would be special in this regard. The only thing unique to fighting breeds is they were bred to be good at killing without reason.
This was a specific multi-year cull aimed at removing human aggression from the bull breeds. One reference to it is here: https://jackalsoldcountryblood.com/the-history-of-the-staffo... (although I'm not too keen on the guy that runs this site who sells really crappy training guides)
Dogs are eternaly fucked up. In my opinion this animal shouldn't exist and I'm willing to bet money that in not-so-distant future we'll be looking down on ourselves for partaking in such psychological madness.
I say this as a rescue dog owner and general animal lover myself. These animals are beyond any sort of healthy, reasonable existance. Unfortunately there's nothing much we can do to fix this other than a cultural revolution but humans are far too selfish for that.
My dog was bred to race but sucked at it. Had she not been rescued and adopted, her life would be substantially worse than it is today, assuming she survived at all. It's pretty hard for me to imagine a negative analysis of our arrangement.
The author also makes a distinction between pets and working dogs, as if owning a dog to corral your sheep is somehow more ethical than having one for companionship. I don't get this part at all.
I have a non-working companion dog, but I think in general working dogs like sheep dogs have more fulfilling lives, which is therefore more ethical than keeping me company. But since that isn't really an option for my particular dog, there's nothing wrong with my keeping and just loving the heck out of her.
This brings me to a silly observation I made while using dating sites: the "crazy dog lady" stereotype. I'm sure most of us here are familiar with the "crazy cat lady" stereotype. She is often portrayed as a woman who has given up on finding a mate and instead adopts numerous cats to fill in the social voids of not having a family. In contrast, The crazy dog lady doesn't even realize her situation. Her profile is filled with pictures of her and her dog at various locations. She might even have a picture at an exotic vacation destination with their dog. The profile usually states things like "we're a package deal" and "If foofy doesn't like you then we wont get along". That is the kind of person I steer far away from because to me, she isn't looking for a mate, she is looking for another dog.
Some points I believe the author is wrong about:
If given a choice, Dogs prefer the exact lifestyle the author is deriding. If you've ever had an outdoor dog on a lot of land, that's free to roam, they run briefly occasionally, then return to the home/den to sleep most of of the day. And if the owner is around depending on the dogs personality they'll typically spend it around the owner.
This is what dogs prefer.
The author is using the human version of Maslow's hierarchy to claim that dogs need fulfilling work and meaning to exist.
Dogs don't need to be 'working' to live happy fulfilling lives. Feral dogs aren't wandering around herding or retrieving things.
Dogs are animals and as long as they have food, excercise, some other dogs to socialize with and the pack alpha is happy with them that is the peak of their Maslow hierarchy of needs.
Only humans need filling work to do to be happy. Every other animal in nature is happy to just survive day to day and have companionship and the ability to explore their environment.
----
This is the only thing I think the author is correct about:
Dogs are a lot of work. They require a lot of excercise. Dogs that are left in apartments all day with a 15 minute walk is borderline abuse.
No one tells dog owners this though.
Dogs need a lot of socializing.
I take mine to the Dog park for an hour at least socializing daily.
Alot of cities have bar/dog parks so the humans and the dogs can both socialize.
Doggy daycare is a great option as well when you're not going to be home and have to leave the dog alone.
Dogs are extremely simple: If you can spend time with them and get them both excercise(mental and physical) and playtime with other dogs...that's the peak of what they need. Theyre not living an unfulfilling existence because they can't start that cappuccino stand they've always dreamed of.
However a lot of dog owners are not aware of this and treat their dog like furniture or clothing accessory and this is where the problems the author was talking about coming to play.
Uh, the barest of a 15sec google search, or the first minute of any halfway decent Youtube article mentions all you talk about
It's very much 101 stuff. People missing that basic knowledge are at fault here.
This is why we neuter dogs, primarily (population control and backyard breeder nightmare control)
Some places have reasonable laws RE: dog ownership restrictions.
The feeling I felt in that moment never left me. I enjoy dogs, dogs have a purpose, I don't tell people that they're bad people for owning dogs, but...yeah, something is definitely out of whack in our society.
As a dog owner, I agreed with many parts of it.
It takes thought, time, and effort to make sure your pup has a rich and fulfilling life. I feel bad for animals that get cooped up into apartments. When I imagine it from their perspective, I feel like I would go insane -- it makes a lot of badly behaved dogs make more sense when you consider it from their shoes (paws).
But as a good dog owner, I am sure you are already aware of this ;)
Humans can also also have this disease and it leads to extraordinarily empathetics individuals with caracteristics facial features.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/rare-human-syndrome-may-e... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome
Taking care of rescue dogs and cats, improving their living conditions and integrating them into family on the other hand is absolutely fine if done responsibly.
This means that you have to take animal's behavioral tendencies into account. Many rescue dogs experience separation anxiety so if you can't devote enough time to help them overcome that problem, adopt an animal with confirmed, friendly disposition. Shelters should let you know which animals are a good fit for your lifestyle (and in some cases the answer can be "none").
If a working dog reached retirement age, you would think they deserved to be sent to a farm or another place where they had some freedom after a life of captivity. Granted, truly wild dogs would be considered a problem, and the enormous pressure humans exert on nature has completely suppressed biodiversity, so there's not ever going to be a place for the canine species to be left alone.
We domesticated dogs a relatively long time ago and they became symbiotes, but we didn't really consider what that meant. They definitely seem to live in servitude as emotional mirrors and, as the article tries to highlight, fake children. Responsible dog "stewardship" is somewhat laughable because even their disposition has been selectively bred to the extreme to serve human interests. They've essentially lost some of the spark the wild animals are seen to possess. Some people think they are humbling themselves by cleaning up after a dog, but it's not done in service to the dog. No human is lowering themselves in any substantial way, and many people wouldn't even consider doing that for a dog. Actually, you seem to end up a hypocrite if you refuse to view even the most intelligent humans as callous and careless creatures no matter how hard anyone tries to give a dog a better life. Humans are cursed by sentience, and we realize we are in charge of making decisions, so we can never live a simple existence side-by-side with dogs and follow our nature.
It's always going to be ethically questionable to keep dogs. If we "need" service dogs or want them to have a purpose while preventing their extinction, it seems like most dogs should live in the wild on preserved land. A limited population of dogs of various breeds can be kept if they will be highly respected as working dogs and actually get to experience the (human) world assuming that even makes sense. We should track their evolution to see how much we are really changing them from their more natural state. Some people would consider all this a massive waste of resources (for a chosen, land mammal that, for one, is never going to be sentient unless they get an incredible opportunity millions of years after humans somehow go extinct). I tend to agree, but it's so hard to comprehend the monstrosity of a system we already have with household pets.
I may be thinking about all the wrong questions with my awkward mindset, but I doubt that you can really know that you've made a significant leap by correcting bad assumptions about our relationship with subservient animals. From an observer's view, humans are bound to prove themselves pathetically predictable in some ways and indecipherably crazy in others when it comes to how we end up "looking after" other entities. For example, someone is probably desperate or foolish enough to wish they could talk to their animal. That's an incredibly scary proposition. If someone purported to have an AI that could tell us what a dog was thinking, it would better if it was just a trick that we could use to deceive ourselves.
Is that not ownership?
As such, sometimes I look at my (very affectionate) cats and wonder why do they chose to live with me? Sure there is free food and heating in the winter, but do they _know_ that and why don't they just run away and take their chances?
In any case, I don't feel bad about "having" cats, since to me it seems like it is a win-win situation for them. They get food, medical treatment, shelter and when they need to stretch their legs they can always wander off. They do seem quite happy in sleeping the whole afternoon in the same room as me, as I'm working, anyway.
Me and many others have left our cats (and sometimes, dogs) alone at home to go work abroad, and they're still there when you go back, surviving by hunting/scavenging. They always recognize and happily run to you.
Thankfully there are shelters/carers now, but over a decade ago it was the wild east.
On the other hand, cats won't stick around if they don't like you, I've had cats from neighbours (burnt out alcoholics) run away and hide at my place any chance they got. They'd literally run away when the owners tried to catch them. Fucking sad.
Dogs will stick with you. Which is probably even sadder.
your cat does not wake you up in the morning and meow until she gets her morning food ? mine even gives me little taps on the face until I'm up sometimes.
Cats seem to be more ok with just hanging out in the house. The house is also larger for them than it would be for most dogs. I like dogs, but wouldn't consider owning one again unless I had quite a bit of land and actual things to do outside.
Probably similar to what our landlords and employers think. /s
Having said that my cat is very affectionate and loves to ask me to come outside and watch him playing. I'm sure he sees it as a parent/child relationship though (come on dad, watch me chase this leaf/kill this mouse)
Am first time dog owner (as an adult). Right before the apocalypse.
A handful of Yes And:
Like the cockapoo's owners, most dog owners I've met are basket cases. (Me included.) Not as nutty as cat owners, or godforbid parrot owners, but still pretty nutty. I'm pretty sure most humans are nuts, and that pet ownership is an expression, outlet, and amplifier of that intrinsic nuttiness.
Totally agree about under stimulated dogs. My dog is high maintenance. Requires at least two major outings per day. Long walk, hikes, dog park, play dates. But truly, he's only happy while chasing birds on the beach. If you see a spaz dog, most of the time blame the owner.
Most dogs need to be in a pack. So get a second dog. Bonus will be the owner won't be the sole center of dog's universe. Until we score our lottery ticket getting another rescue, I'm dog sitting our neighbor's dogs during the day. Makes everyone happier.
Positive reinforcement is magic. I so wish I knew about clicker training before having a human kid. As a first time dog owner, I'm still pretty bad at it. OMG, so many mistakes. OMG, so much bad advice. But getting better with practice and experience. And the benefits of focusing on the positive have spilled over to other parts of my life.
Lastly, in general, I'd say don't get a pet if you wouldn't have a kid. A dog and a toddler are about the same amount of effort and moral responsibility. And a dog will always be a toddler.
If you have a dog, set time aside to do activities with them, whether it's training tricks with them, or some sort of cooperative sport, obedience, nosework, etc.
Imo the same holds true for little kids, not everybody loves them (for good reason) hence why parents must be responsible in their relation between their small kids and the others.
Later edit: After reading the actual article (I know, I should have read it before leaving the first comment) it seems that the poor dogo has separation anxiety issue, again, a thing which me and SO actively tried to address since the very beginning (on the advice of our vet and the dog's trainer, among other people).
Also, the dog following the author around the house seems to be also anxiety-related and should have been addressed by the owner earlier on in the dog's life. It's nothing unsolvable (when it comes to the dog) but the problem is most probably with the owner (a nuance that can be caught from the article itself), if the owner doesn't actively want to solve that issue in his/her dog and if the owner doesn't work together with the dog under the supervision of professional help (let's say a dog trainer) then nothing much can be done about it. I very strongly believe that in these cases (and in the majority of the cases related to dog-ownership) the issues which are present are the fault of the owners, not of the dogs themselves.
It boils down to: Owners who don't excercise and socialize their dog enough are abusive.
And I think that's what the author is trying to point out from a different angle. And I agree. Dogs are kept by people to fill social voids WITHOUT thinking of any social voids the dog might have. And I believe many owners think they have a happy dog when in fact the dog's quality of life is pretty low.
I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did. For people who own dogs, cognitive dissonance sets in; they all mostly react extremely negatively to any questioning of dog ownership. People who don’t own dogs are mostly indifferent, and won’t upvote enough to compensate. It’s one of those (many) issues where the most extreme and unbending minority gets its way just because there is no unified opposition.
In this particular case I think the dog may have more integrity then the substitute person can see.
Imagine if someone who only bathed a couple times per month rolled around in your bed every day.
Many people are fine with being dirty, so there isn't a moral argument against pets here, just a personal preference, but if you shower more than three times per week then your decision to have a cat or dog in your bed and on your sofa is inconsistent.
In fact, cats are much more dirty after grooming, given that their saliva is a primary contributing factor to the contaminants that they spread everywhere they go.
My dog, that eats roadkill, sniffs butts, and rolls in shit...is not having a 'meaningful' and 'life affirming' existence?
Just wow.
I think the central problem all comes down to the word "ownership" - like a car, or a slave. Really I don't even treat my car that that! (although it's a sometimes problematic relationship)
Only in the eyes of the legal system you might be the "owner" of an animal, but that's not at all the real dynamic of any healthy relationship with any animal. Working animals too.
There's absolutely nothing wrong or selfish with finding a mutually rewarding relationship with other people. Even if some of those people are the four legged fur covered types. After that, with any animal, it's a matter of personality and taste in what or who you like and don't. And vice-versa. Just like with human peoples it's a two way street.
So the best thing is that this author recognizes the way he thinks and at least isn't interested in "owning" a dog himself. If he would kindly avoid any other contact with any other animals, that'd be be even better. He's projecting, but fortunately all of us are not that shallow.
If I remember correctly, it also reduces the risk of some type of cancer plus the risk of unwanted puppies.
The link between agression and neutering has been refuted by some studies.
For male cats neutering reduces territorial spraying (urinating in order to mark your space; the smell of the urine is also much stronger if ca isn't neutered).
However, I grew up with dogs in the 70's and 80's, and we never had them neutered, and they weren't going round humping everybody's leg. I think for now, I'll only consider it if I see specific behavioural or health issues that could be cured by it.
There are studies that show, at least for large dogs, that hip and joint problems are less prevalent if the dog is not neutered before 1 year old (or not at all). Roughly, the intuition is that in males it allows the testosterone to have muscles grow to match their bones.
One citation: https://www.akcchf.org/news-events/news/health-implications-...
And another: https://www.dvm360.com/view/when-is-the-best-time-to-neuter-...
[1] https://www.banfield.com/en/about-banfield/newsroom/press-re...
Domestic dogs co-evolved with humans. While they can survive on their own, their evolutionary niche is humans. The most successful strays will still forage human garbage.
Don't get a dog if you have anger management or emotional problems. It's not fair to the dog.
> Apartments
Agree with this - being left in an apartment all day isn't fair to a dog, especially for large/athletic dogs. It's also not fair to your neighbors (if you live in a city) to have a dog at home barking a good portion of the day.
Our dogs have a 1 acre fenced yard that we give them regular access to, and we walk them 6 or 7 times a day. It's a lot of work.
> Parental instincts
It's true that dogs can fill an emotional need as "fur babies". It might seem gross, but if it means fewer humans (and the dog was a rescue anyway) then surely it's a net positive in terms of resource use/environmental impact. If you're pursuing a DINK plan towards early retirement, every little thing you can do to fool your genetic programming is good.
> Dog industry
If you're going to get a dog, get a rescue mutt. Most of the modern breeds are a) relatively recent inventions (~150 years), b) genetically inferior due to cross breeding. Dogs are by default mutts. (Excellent book: "What is a dog?")
If you're new to dog ownership, don't rescue a mutt (or "pure" breed) that has a reputation for aggressiveness or neurosis. (Having made this mistake and rescued a pit/boxer as our second dog.) Fostering rather than adopting is a good way to try-before-you-commit. Rescuing a middle aged or older dog who has already been trained may be a good way to get into dog ownership, as you're signing up for a 4-6 year responsibility rather than 10-12 years. Yes, you miss the puppy stage, but middle aged dogs can be plenty charming.
> Western (/first world) dogs
After having lived in the US for half of our lives, we now live in a country where the local relationship to dogs is very different. Almost all customers at the local vet are expats. A dog will often "adopt" a local household and end up being fed, but usually they're not restrained, and the emotional bond is different. If the dog wonders off into the wilderness, locals aren't going to spend much time looking for it. The average lifespan for typical dogs who live like this is much lower than those owned by expats, or those kept as pets in the US.
Is free, wilder and short-lived better than kept, domesticated and long-lived? Somewhat depends on the circumstance in which the dog is kept, and the owner - so probably sometimes.
Dominance is not even the proper way to think about dog social behavior. It's based on flawed studies from the 1960s.
I encourage everyone to read the AVSAB position statement on dominance:
"The Culture Clash" is another excellent book for understanding dogs.
I used to think it meant the owner was busting down doors with animal rescue police to take an abused animal out of a bad home, but more likely than not it just means someone got their dog at a shelter.